The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

No, of course not: it'll take much more than just a failure to upgrade an operating system to kill a behemoth like Microsoft. However, it is possible that, as our man Churchill said, it might be the end of the beginning. For as I've said before I'm very puzzled over what Microsoft is trying to achieve with Windows 8.

Yes, it looks like a good enough tablet operating system. And it's also quite fine as a desktop operating system. But there's a problem with the way in which every user now has to learn to use the operating system all over again. And what should worry Redmond a great deal more than some journo like me remarking upon this is the way that at least one fund manager has sold his stock in the company as a result of his confusion over their plans.

Seldom have I looked at something that is a major long in the portfolio, changed my mind, sold the entire position and continued selling to go short (albeit in a small way).

I just did that on Microsoft. The immediate trigger was Windows 8 - but the thinking has been longer and harder than that.

This post is to run through my thinking - and maybe generate some comment.

The essential point is that at the heart of the Microsoft value equation is their near lock on desktop operating systems.

Even if we all stopped writing new code for Windows (as, to some extent is true, we have done, much writing is now being done in Python and so on which is not platform or OS specific) right now then there are vast numbers of legacy systems out there that will continue to require Windows licenses for decades to come.

But Windows 8 asks everyone to relearn how they interact with a computer. Yes, there's still that legacy systems tailwind helping the company. But if everyone now has to learn a new OS then why would everyone learn the new Windows? The very change they're bringing in means that people will be open to changing to a non-Windows platform.

I could argue this from an entirely personal perspective. Sure, I use a computer as the essential tool for making my daily bread and butter. I use Windows simply because that's what every cheap computer on the market comes pre-loaded with. Plus I've near 20 years experience of using one form of Windows or another (no, really, I had Windows 1.0 at one point). But I don't actually use "Windows" if you see what I mean. I use something that opens a word processor, I use something that will allow a browser to run. And that really is about it. I'm sure my experience of computing is similar to the vast majority of people out there too. We're no more interested in which OS we use than which spark plugs are in our car's engine. As long as it works then we're happy.

Which is the danger of presenting us with an entirely new way (the Metro interface which pretty much insists that you access as if you're on a tablet) of interacting with the computer. If we've got to learn all this new stuff well, why not go off and use some other OS that doesn't force us to do so? Or one that we don't have to pay for?

It's entirely possible even that Metro, the tablet interface, really is a better and more intuitive method of interfacing with a computer. But who cares? Maybe changing where the pedals on a car are is a really good idea too. But can you imagine trying to bring in such a change while still keeping your market share?

It's worth looking at the video that Hempton has posted. Half the point of the Windows near monopoly is that we all know how to use it. But if we don't all know how to use Windows 8 then where's the value of us all knowing how to use it?